Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: “This issue is lost”

First here are a few comments by Allahpundit over at hotair.com that I find poignant :

quote:Rush claims the battle was lost when conservatives started modifying the word “marriage” (“traditional marriage,” “straight marriage”) to describe the institution rather than insisting that the word itself necessarily refers to traditional/straight relationships and therefore doesn’t require modification. How would you have enforced that message discipline against the left, though? Their 40 percent of the country would have been calling it “gay marriage” no matter what. If in fact phraseology is influencing opinion, then theirs was bound to influence undecideds too. Things might have changed more slowly, but they still would have changed. The real reason gay marriage has gone mainstream so quickly, I think, is because gays have become so much more visible in the culture over the past 25 years. When Pew asked people who have changed their minds about SSM why they did so, the answer most frequently given was that they found out someone they know is gay. The more people come out of the closet, the more those numbers increase. In fact, and to his credit, Rush has occasionally played his own small part to increase mainstream acceptance of gays. When he needed someone to play his wedding, he asked the famously gay Elton John to do the honors, then spoke warmly of him on his first show back after the honeymoon. According to his biographer, Zev Chafets, Rush “has no problem with gay civil unions” either. When Americans hear, from both the left and some on the right, that gays deserve the same substantive rights as married couples (if perhaps under a different name) and that out-and-proud homosexuality’s no bar to friendship or an invitation to your wedding, it’s no surprise that undecideds might not end up as sticklers on whether gay partnerships can/should be described as “marriages” too.

re: Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: “This issue is lost”(Posted by GumboPot on 3/28/13 at 8:27 pm to ForeLSU)

quote:the opportunity for the government to get out of the marriage business.

I don't think that was ever a realistic opportunity. The only politician in this 10-15 year debate that even slightly alluded to getting government out of the marriage business was Rand Paul a couple of weeks ago when he suggested that the term marriage should be removed from the tax code.

re: Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: “This issue is lost”(Posted by Teddy Ruxpin on 3/28/13 at 8:28 pm to ForeLSU)

quote:the opportunity for the government to get out of the marriage business.

That and the difference between words like "rights" and "privileges" and what comes or is protected when one attempts to exercise one or the other. Culd have been a learning experience for the masses.

I figure many people hate "the law" simply because they don't know wtf they are talking about. The continued muddling of privileges into rights is not a good thing as more and more minor "rights" being recognized actually infringes on liberty by handing it to the few to determine what is a right and what is not, therefore creating "rights" that give persons greater power or latitude than others.

The point is over stated, but one can't deny the intentional injection of gay characters for the purpose of making them a sympathetic character.

Still, the issue is lost. What I hope that comes from this is people asking themselves "What is the role of government" and not "What can I get the government to do?" I support freedom (including public marriage) in the hope for more freedom and principle, but I imagine I'll be disappointed.

quote:"What is the role of government" and not "What can I get the government to do?" I support freedom (including public marriage) in the hope for more freedom and principle, but I imagine I'll be disappointed.

"What can I get the government to do?" is exactly what gay marriage is about.

re: Rush Limbaugh on gay marriage: “This issue is lost”(Posted by VOR on 3/28/13 at 9:33 pm to dominustd)

quote:Why not just limit gov'ts scope in marriage and change cohabitation tax laws?

Well, I think most people discuss these issues with reality in mind (don't mean that as a flame, but government will always be involved with formal unions between couples and the disposition of property and the support of children).